Friday, January 29, 2010

World Climate Report » Should IPCC Reports Contain a Warning Label?
Should products produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carry the following warning label:
“The findings of the IPCC reports were developed in advance and furthered by a careful selection from whatever material could be found to support them. In some cases, supporting material was developed or fabricated where none could otherwise be located. As such, these findings may not necessarily reflect the true state of scientific understanding. Use at your own risk."
Think Progress » For eighth day, climate [hoax] activists block bulldozers at WV’s Coal River Mountain.
Yesterday in Washington, DC, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) exhorted citizens to “get angry about the fact that they’re being killed and our planet is being injured by what’s happening on a daily basis by the way we provide our power and our fuel.” In West Virginia, climate activists are not just getting angry, they’re taking action — blocking the demolition of Coal River Mountain by coal company Massey Energy. The activists, members of the aptly named organization Climate Ground Zero, have been living in trees for over a week to prevent bulldozers from reaching the summit
Is Global Warming a "Crock of S*%t?" - BusinessWeek
In the end, maybe the climate change evangelists are right and mankind is the reason the planet is warming. But if you read enough articles on the subject over a long enough period, you find that the factual weather data do not always line up with the scientific pronouncements that are being sold to us. For one thing, computer modeling is not all that accurate, nor do those machines have any more logic than what is programmed into them. In simplest terms, anyone who can program a relational database knows you can alter the code to where 2 + 2 = 4.25. The computer spits it out, but it's not true. Now extrapolate that out to where one is programming all of the factors known for weather, present, past, and future, and you understand the complexity is so great that no output from those programs can mean anything. It's called GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.

Now, are you willing to bet the world's economies on that logic? If you are, you are putting more lives in danger than global warming has.
For many, the scientific contrarians actually have the better argument. We should test their theories, too, and see if their science holds up any better than today's so-called consensus.

Note: Ed Wallace has never been involved with or accepted any compensation from any industry involved in energy.

(This is the first of a multipart series of columns on global warming.)
Barbarians at the Gates | Climate Skeptic
Why do so many scientists from various fields, who may have less knowledge of the details of climate science than a layman like myself has, sign onto all these petitions and letters supporting the science?
...
People often take public positions for what that position communicates about themselves, rather than based on any kind of rigorous analysis. I would argue that a solid chunk of the Obama votes in the last election were not based on any real understanding of the candidate but on the desire to say, “look what an enlightened person I am, I have voted for a black man for President.”

No comments: